The study that was mentioned in the vid was presented as a poster at a conference on strokes. It showed an elevated incidence of cardiovascular events
amongst those who drank diet soda regularly over the 9 years of the study. Yet just a few days ago everyone on an aspartame thread on ATS was trying
to implicated Aspartame as a carcinogen!
Firstly, the study was a poster, not a publication or talk at the conference.
Secondly, since when does the media start traipsing around medical conventions and reporting on posters. Something smells fishy. Who paid for this
Thirdly, the study is flawed. The only conclusion you can draw from this is that people who choose to drink diet soda are more likely to have
cardiovascular events. It does not imply that it is less safe to drink diet soda than ordinary soda or other drinks. Think about it for a moment, why
would a person *choose* to drink diet soda instead of ordinary soda? Some of those reasons may in and of themselves be sufficient cause for an
increase in the risk of cardiovascular events on average over the population. The study did correct for obesity and smoking and a few other known
risks. However it did not correct for the many reasons people choose to drink diet soda in the first place.
Fourthly, even if there is an actual increased risk of having cardiovascular events from drinking diet soda, that doesn't imply it's aspartame causing
Finally, piles of people in that vid and on this forum say that aspartame causes cancer, yet that study did not show that.
To do the study properly it should be double blind. Aspartame should be given randomly to 50% of people in the study and an alternative to the rest.
Neither the researchers nor the people taking the stuff should know who's getting what. Only if there's a difference at the end when the results are
revealed can you conclude anything. And the drinks would have to be identical in every way.
With flawed studies like this you can prove **anything at all**. I don't know about this particular study, but companies with a financial interest do
flawed studies **all the time**.
Let's see some discussion of large studies of aspartame that were done with strict controls, without shonky statistics, which passed peer review and
which were not methodologically flawed or paid for by corporations with a vested financial interest in the result and which weren't propagated as
Don't believe everything you are fed by the corporations and main stream media. Deny ignorance!
Added in edit:
Another thing that bothers me here. The study corrected for obesity. So there are two possibilities:
1) The people drinking ordinary soda were more obese and had **even more** cardiovascular events before correction for obesity.
2) The people drinking ordinary soda were as thin as the people drinking diet soda. If that's the case, the people taking the diet soda were taking
the same number of calories as the people drinking the ordinary soda. That means people drinking the diet soda were replacing the calories from some
other source. Maybe unhealthy food!?
Either way this study is totally and utterly useless for determining the health effects of aspartame.
edit on 17-2-2011 by XtraTL because: